4 ms·

>I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. These are not "needs" that are failing to be deli

by ue_ 10y ago

>I too would like it if others would meet my needs and I could disregard the needs of all other human beings. These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. I value your needs, I value what you want. But I do not value the fact that your need must only be satisfied by my being forced to sell my time for your need. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. Either way, I would argue that the freedom of the whole world, of all the workers, is more important than desires for new cars, computers, jewellery etc. When we are producing so many products and yet people cannot afford to live with clean water, clothes or not having to worry about starving, lack of health insurance etc. then I think we have a problem. Capitalism does not function for the purpose of the needs of humans. Not by a long shot, so please do not frame it that way. It is merely a side effect. And I'm not asking you to value my needs, I'm asking you to value the needs of your fellows and, if you are a working person, yourself. Again, I do not want to satisfy needs under threat of destitution, poverty and death.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival. >So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Yes, that's correct.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Ask yourself - how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? Yes, that's correct. I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      >how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit. >I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals. I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
      - RickHull 10y ago
        > and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death. That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade. None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.

by ue_ 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

These are not "needs" that are failing to be delivered; the only need a worker serves is the boss' "need" to make profit within capitalism. I care wholly for the needs of humans, not for the needs of the person I'm selling my labour to. The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. You help him to do it. I do not want to be forced. I don't want anyone to be forced. So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Somehow I doubt that the absence of force is what you had in mind.

ue_ 10y ago
>The boss is a human who makes his money by meeting the needs of other humans. No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Furthermore, this exploutation is not necessary for the boss to have a high standard of living, never mind bare survival. >So if I choose not to provide for your needs, no action will be taken against me? Yes, that's correct.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  No, he makes his money by exploiting the labour of workers. Ask yourself - how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? Yes, that's correct. I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >how much money does this capitalist make if consumers do not find his products valuable and don't purchase them? None, but I have little sympathy or wish for the success of those who exploit others, especially if that profit derives from the exploitation itself. A society without exploitation is possible and even in this society one need not exploit. >I'm glad you favor a zero taxation society where all social programs are funded entirely by charitable contributions by uncoerced individuals. I have a feeling you are being facetious here, but you are essentially correct. But we must also take into account the unjustness of private property too, and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death.
    - RickHull 10y ago
      > and that it is indeed coercive to give someone or class only a choice between forcing to sell their labour or to rely upon the charity of others or death. That is nature. Consume or die. Since one can only consume what is produced (or windfallen), one must produce (or scavenge windfalls) or die. In a society one can escape this iron law of nature through charity or trade. None of this descends from private property. These are laws of nature.